Posted on 02/17/2006 8:42:17 AM PST by thebaron512
A federal jury awarded $18 million to a teacher who claimed a sheriff's detective falsely accused him of kidnapping and assaulting a girl and hid evidence that would have exonerated him.
Wednesday's award was the largest ever against the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. The jury could decide that plaintiff Raul Ramirez deserves more money when the trial enters its punitive phase Thursday.
Because the county is not insured, the award, if upheld, would be paid by the department at a time when Sheriff Lee Baca is complaining that underfunding is forcing him to release jail inmates early and preventing him from placing enough deputies in jails to improve security.
Ramirez, 29, a teacher at Charles R. Drew Middle School in Compton, was arrested after a student there identified him as the man who kidnapped her at gunpoint in May 2002 as she waited for a bus, drove her to another location and demanded that she perform a sex act. The 16-year-old girl managed to escape.
A jury found Ramirez not guilty after he produced ATM receipts and cell phone records showing he was miles from the scene when the crime occurred. A judge later made the rare finding that he was "factually innocent."
Ramirez, of Bellflower, then sued the Sheriff's Department, alleging that Detective Frank Bravo built a false case against him.
According to Ramirez's federal complaint, Bravo knew Ramirez did not match the victim's description of her assailant but withheld that information until just before trial. Ramirez's attorney also alleged Bravo did not disclose the existence of the girl's backpack, which did not bear Ramirez's fingerprints.
Bravo "arrested Mr. Ramirez and basically shattered his life based on the unreliable eyewitness identification of a teenage girl who was mistaken," said Ramirez's attorney, Michael Artan. "Then he hid evidence that would have exonerated Mr. Ramirez."
Bravo, a 20-year veteran assigned to the Century Station in Lynwood, could not be reached for comment by the Los Angeles Times.
Assistant County Counsel Roger Granbo said the county was disappointed by the verdict. Sheriff's officials believed they were not liable because prosecutors thought the case against Ramirez had merit, he said.
"The district attorney knew the problems with the case and the positive aspects and made an independent decision to prosecute," Granbo said.
The largest previous award against the sheriff's department was $15.9 million, which a jury ordered paid to 36 people who had been arrested at a Cerritos bridal shower six years earlier.
Such identifications, even made in good faith, are routinely wrong.
The problem is the blind faith people have in such IDs of perps by victims.
He wasn't cleared quickly of the false accusation because the detective hid evidence.
He likely lost his job, was likely held in prison until the trial, and will still have people questioning if he really did it just because of the seriousness of the charge for the rest of his life.
He was cleared of the criminal charges, but do you really think he's going to have an easy time finding another job as a school teacher?
Yes, $18 million sounds awfully high. I suspect it's so high because the LA Sheriff's department has a long history of misbehaving and poor police work.
There are cameras at ATM machines.
I apologize; I made my statement without fully understanding all the negative impact that the teacher suffered as a result of his name being tarnished, his job & career lost and so many other things taken away.
If it takes 5 or more years to fecover his good-standing & public-trust within his community, then $18 million should suffice, I'm sure.
And, No but I have never heard of Randall Adams.
"Factually innocent" mean that the facts proved he was not the person who did it.
Unlike OJ, for example, that was found not guilty because the DA did not prove their case.
In this case, the judge declared that he really didn't do it.
As Rush says: "run the numbers"
if we do, we get:
Loss of salary: 3 yrs x 50,000 $/yr = 150,000
Loss of future salary: 25 yrs. x 60,000 = $1,500,000
Loss of Pension: $1,000,000
Loss of Medical benefits: $500,000 (probably low)
Loss of House: $500,000
Out of pocket costs: $150,000
Total of above: $3,800,000
Law designates triple damages: 3 x 3.8 m = 11,400,000
Plus attorney fees and taxes.
$18,000,000 is not too far off, IMHO.
Wrong. The TAXPAYERS got it in the shorts because of what the Sheriff's department did. The JBT who did this won't get any heat from it.
Baca is a total joke, as are all of the Sherriffs in LA County.... A bunch of high strung wanna bees...
However, this department has a pervasive history of mal-and misfeasance, from the top down. Because of LA COunty's amorphous non-structure, the Sheriff has extraordinary practical power, combined with very useful political clout.
There are many brave and honest deputies, but they don't last long unless they go along to get along. And of course, along the way, they bust some really bad dudes and put them away. The real abuses are at and close to the top, with very little trickling down to the LEO doing his job.
PS Can't wait to see the award after the appeal.
Because the county is not insured, the award, if upheld, would be paid by the department....
Why isn't the county insured??
The County is "self-insured" and pays such judgments out of its treasury which is replenished from state and local taxes. If you live in California, guess what? You are the insurer.
The problem with your numbers.
1) the man is not in a condition that makes him unemployable. 25 years of future salary is an unreasonable expectation. More like 4 years based upon the time that it would take him to retrain in a new field -- degree. 4 X $60,000 = $240,000
2) loss of pention would be loss of contributions to 401K plan. Say $6,000 per year for 8 years (4 for the trial plus 4 for the future loss of employment). That assumes a $1,500 contribution plus $4,500 (~9% contribution of $50,000) total = $48,000
Loss of medical benefits - Full burden of Medical insurance is about $800 per month so lets go with $10,000 per year = $80,000
I'm cool with the $500,000 for the house
Out of pocket costs I assume would cover Atty fees so ok, $150,000
Total of above would be - $ 1,168,000... heck round that to 1,250,000. At 3 times damages (if the police department did not follow the rules of evidence) $ 3,750,000
A wide margin off from the $18 Million
1) he was a Teacher, thus the pension and medical were part of his compensation, not 401K.
2) He likely is unemplyable in his chosen field beacuse of this.
3) Attorney fees routinely take 50% of the award.
4) Out of pocket, was to cover his costs of relocation, apartment rent, etc. while he was out of work.
Would you go through what this guy did for the amount you are suggesting? No way.
The county got off cheap.
*** crickets chirping ***
you either did not read or did not understand the findings of the court.
Read it again and get back to me. Plus you did not answer my question.
Why not. The plaintiff is a minority and the jury probably was too
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.